corvus

Where abouts are you? I'm in southern Sydney and may be able to help.

I use their names. "Erik". Erik goes "Yes! What do you need?" Gotta reward him for paying attention, though. I used to use "uh-uh" with Kivi, but it takes maintenance. It's easier to maintain a positive interruptor than a negative one IMO.

Sorry, that's not what I was referring to. If I verbally interrupted her before she did anything, then there was nothing to punish, i.e. no consequence for the behaviour because it didn't occur. But as I've said, I found it very difficult to interrupt before it occurred consistently, so several times a day she would snark and I would give her an instant time out. She got to the point where she would snark, and I would only have to look at her and she'd cower and head for the nearest door. I stopped doing it because it was clearly not working. Either it wasn't punishing enough or I was punishing the wrong thing. She seemed to have the association between snarking and me getting cross with her, which I suspect was more punishing than the time out itself, but it didn't change the behaviour. In fact, I believe it made it worse, creating more tension than there already was, which made her more tetchy. She was quite a sensitive dog. I'm not talking about managing behaviour with luring and diversion. I'm talking about managing the environment so the behaviour never actually occurs in the first place, thus diversions aren't actually needed. My goal in managing behaviour is controlling as much as possible what my dogs have success with and what they don't. I am happy to let my younger dog get a little stressed and "reward" good coping skills by making sure they work for him. I like to encourage my dogs to find calm, non-aggressive coping strategies. I do that by managing their environment. I don't expect more of them than I think they can handle. If I do, I sure as hell don't punish it when they fail. That is my mistake, not theirs. The so-called double reinforcer is IMO fraught with difficulties. What behaviour are you actually punishing? "Managing the behaviour mechanically" IS managing. If the dog physically can't practice a behaviour, it tends to become extinct. That has been my experience. My dogs have never tried climbing a fence. Our fences are impossible for them to climb, so they seem to see fences in general as an impenetrable barrier. Why should learning that climbing fences results in negative things happening and learning that climbing fences results in nothing of interest happening have any bearing on whether a dog climbs a new fence they have never seen? IMO, if I want it good and gone forever right now, I will punish it and I will do a damn good job of it. I find I rarely want that, though. Why bother and risk all the fallout that comes from using punishments if I can just whack up a physical barrier and let the behaviour die a natural death? The answer to me is I will only bother if it's a behaviour that is very dangerous or expensive. I have not found extinction to be particularly unreliable. My Erik is an outrageously optimistic dog and if he's tried it once he will probably try it again sooner or later, whether I punish it or just let it go extinct. If I can't afford a mistake, I don't depend on training.

Okay, but how do you guarantee consistency? My experience when I was dealing with this was with a much softer dog and a verbal interruption was sufficient. She had very good bite inhibition and she was not trying to start fights, just snarking at my pup. Poor little guy could hardly do anything without getting snarked at. So as long as I was aware of her at all times, I could stop it, but I just could not be aware of her at all times. Sometimes it would happen behind me, or when I was in another room, or when I had my attention on a book, or the tv, or talking to someone. There was no way for me to be consistent enough to change the behaviour. In the end I had the most success with giving her more attention and managing situations where I knew she was likely to get snarky so she couldn't get at the pup. Did it teach her consequences? No. But teaching her consequences didn't address the problem, and this did. It didn't take a long time. The effects were instantaneous. That's the beauty of nailing the emotional drive behind a behaviour. I don't really buy the "dogs need to learn consequences" argument. Why let them fail so they can learn they did? Why not just concentrate on not letting them practice behaviour you don't want in the first place? Then it doesn't ever become a problem.

I'm enjoying the stories. There's a dog we know from the dog park that is like Shine. She is every dog's best friend. Every new puppy that comes to the park is brought into the fold via her. She usually likes boisterous play, but she tones it right down for the puppies and quickly becomes a favourite. She gets special greetings from most dogs that have grown up around her. Lots of circle tail wags and wriggles and C-curves. She's the only dog Erik still greets the same way he did as a puppy. We know a Malamute from the park as well that seems to turn my dogs into grovelling puppies. They don't see him often, but every time they do both of them act like he's some kind of canine celebrity. It's ridiculous. He does tend to walk around like he owns the place and he's so self-assured we never see him posture or threaten. But we come across other dogs with the same bearing sometimes and they don't get fawned over like this dog does.

Yes! It's my job. :D I do actually make a living off it at the moment. Kind of. I pay attention to them and they teach me stuff. It's very interesting. Putting meaning to it is only speculation, but fun speculation. Can you be "overly decisive"? I find a lot of dog behaviour we take for granted is quite interesting. I haven't seen this commonly and I'm sure that's a factor of experience or whatever, but it's a side issue whether I subjectively think it's common or not, so let's say it is. Why should they intervene? Have you ever thought about the confidence required to intervene in a tense situation where a wrong step could land them in hot water? It is a teeny bit risky to walk into that, don't you think? What's the pay-off? Especially if they are intervening between two dogs they don't know. I think it's extremely cool that Kivi not only intervenes, but he adjusts the way he does it to suit dogs he doesn't know and dynamics he's never seen before. It's a nice reminder of how rich canine body language is. He is decisive in that he doesn't hesitate. He tends to be more cautious at other times. Is he confident because he knows what to do, or is he confident because he's learnt to act that way? Or does he act cautiously without actually feeling cautious, kind of like acting submissive as a means of communicating a no-threat signal? Incidentally, there's a cool paper that suggests that free-living dog packs where there is a lot of affiliative behaviour (social bonding type stuff) tend to have more favourable outcomes when they have aggressive encounters over resources with dog packs that have a more rigid social structure with someone at the top controlling everyone else. When the pressure is on, those packs tend to disintegrate, whereas the others hold. Isn't that interesting? Might be the answer to the evolutionary pay-off question. Thanks KtB. Not everyone is gonna care about my idle musings. I assume someone out there at least finds it of passing interest, though.

Given there appears to be agreement that it's hard to stop a fight before it starts, and perhaps taking into account what I said about the difficulties of correcting a dog consistently whenever it shows signs of aggressive behaviour towards the other dog (I don't have eyes in the back of my head), I am wondering just how an e-collar is going to work? Particularly considering the OP's problem is in its genesis, so the behaviour is not yet learnt but is emotionally driven. I, like Aidan, would be very concerned about undesirable classical conditioning taking place. It strikes me as kinda dumb to treat a budding aggression problem between two dogs that live together with significant P+, which I assume is what you're talking about when you say a nick on high level stim, abed. If there have been aggressive encounters, even if no fights have occurred, chances are the associations are already creeping towards negative. It seems like adding more negative to the mix is a tightrope walk between suppressing behaviour and creating a negative emotional response to the presence of the handler and the other dog all in the same place, which could well fuel the aggressive behaviour rather than suppress it.

We were down at the beach this afternoon. Erik had made friends with a young dog and they were having a good time until the young dog started trying to mouth Erik's head while they were running. Erik HATES this from dogs he doesn't know very well and he stopped the game and stood there tongue flicking and giving lots of "please don't" signals. Unfortunately the young dog didn't respond to the signals and Erik said it a bit louder vocally. At this point we decided to leave, but before we get anywhere Kivi launches himself at Erik and buffets him from every side until Erik runs to get away from him, then they charge up and down the beach and every time Erik tries to see where the other dog is Kivi jumps on him and wrestles with him. Kivi and Erik are such firm pals that Erik can't help but enjoy even this rough treatment and he forgets about the other dog, all his attention on his game with Kivi. Kivi looked like all his attention was on Erik, and I thought I would have to body block the other dog as it was still trying to get at Erik's face, but every time it darted towards Erik Kivi's butt would somehow appear in front of it, even if he had to jump in the air and swing himself around 180 degrees to achieve it. Now that's body blocking! Kivi is a lot better at it than I am. He's got a better body plan for it. :D Anyway, two things impressed me. Kivi's quick and very effective intervention, and the power of trusting play to turn an unpleasant situation around. It's not the first time Kivi has intervened in a canine social situation to alleviate tension or draw one dog away from another, and it fascinates me who he gives all his attention to. It's not always Erik. A few times he's ignored Erik and focused on the other dog. How does he know so quickly both where to focus his attention and what to do? It's different every time. He's very decisive and even if I've already made a move to intervene, he always beats me. A trainer once joked to us that he was as good as another staff member at play groups. And as I watched this scenario play out this afternoon (while we were quickly moving the dogs to another part of the beach), it struck me how strong the trust between Erik and Kivi is. Erik was trying to be vigilant, but by practically forcing him into a game, Kivi distracted him from that mindset completely. I do not think that would have been successful if Erik didn't trust Kivi so much. I think Erik would have struck out at Kivi instead, because he was being really pushy, physically preventing Erik from even looking at the other dog. I realised there's no way I could have done the same thing with play. I have a lot of work to do!

Knocking the behaviour off before it reaches a fight still requires a level of consistency that may be difficult to meet, no matter what method or tool you use. I'd far rather identify just why the tension exists in the first place and attempt to treat that, although I am happy to admit it's hard to treat competition in a dog that perceives competition everywhere. That's why I have a rule to avoid putting more than one dog of the same sex and size in my house at once. I guess I'm paranoid.

I second the idea that it's just not as easy as "good leadership" sometimes. I have found that it means not a whole lot. Even good training means not a whole lot. The reason why is because you are basically trying to suppress a natural dog behaviour that is driven by emotion. IME even if you are rigorously consistent it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. My last dog would refrain from snarking at another dog as long as I told her not to do it before she did it. That required me to pick up the warning signs every single time, even when I was not looking at her. It was just not possible to enforce who got to do what in my house. Punishments after the fact even when linked to markers and used immediately after the behaviour actually made it worse. I soon had a dog that cowered from me after every incident, but still did it. The tension created by me trying to control it all just made her more likely to snap. I was lucky in that she was just old and grumpy and wasn't trying to hurt anyone. Anyway, I have spitz breeds now and simply don't believe in "my house my rules" meaning anything to a dog. They will do what life has taught them to do. I can influence that as much as possible, but I am only human and there are always going to be things that sneak up on me or happen when I'm not looking. If I am for some reason not able to intervene at the crucial moment, then my dogs will do what seems necessary to them at the time. I work hard to make sure they don't need to be aggressive, but I'm fallible and dogs will do what works for them. I try to account for my fallibility by just not tempting fate in the first place.

By all reports Dr Seksel is exceptional. That's a pretty good reason to recommend her. However you appear to have missed the bit where I pointed out it may be more economical at this point to skip the VB. I think Seksel and Ley charge about twice as much as anyone else and I hear the waiting list is very long. They are an option, though, and probably a good one if video tapes reveal long periods of anxiety. I would confidently recommend them. I have.

I'm certain that if he thought drug therapy was necessary he would refer. In that case it would probably work out quicker and cheaper to go straight to the VB, wouldn't it? My point was that if someone has limited money or time they should take into consideration what a VB can provide that might be relevant and decide whether they go to a quicker, cheaper trainer first or straight to the VB. It's kind of like deciding whether you want to pay more for an extra feature or two without knowing if you will ever need them. I for one always find that a frustrating scenario and for me the only answer is more information to help me make a decision. In my post I tried to offer that with objective reasons why you might choose one over the other. From what I've heard, there's no questioning the expertise of either. The VBs in Sydney have excellent reputations as well. The issue is whether you decide your resources are better spent on a cheaper trainer that may have to refer or a more expensive VB that won't refer because they are who would be referred to in the first place. As you say, and I also said, we don't know if it is SA. Nor does the OP. Which is why I suggested videoing the behaviour. The OP may even be able to get a trainer to look at the video for free and advise whether it's worth them coming out for a consult.

Not to discredit Steve Courtney, but he's not a veterinary behaviourist. I think suspected SA cases should be assessed by a vet behaviourist because sometimes drugs can make the difference between success and failure. SA is notoriously difficult to treat. The literature on it is surprisingly not that extensive, and I think it is in general not well understood. Unfortunately, vet behaviourists in Sydney are outrageously expensive and have long waiting lists. Most of the benefit to be gained from seeing one for SA is early drug intervention to get that anxiety down before it creates a rigid habit. Given Joey has been exhibiting this problem for 8 years, I think it's safe to say there's no such thing as early intervention anymore. I think there is still a benefit in seeing a vet behaviourist because drugs may well be appropriate, but perhaps it's not economical to go to the expensive potential solution first if time is not a huge issue. First thing I'd do is tape Joey after everyone leaves to see how quickly she settles down if at all. If she calms down on her own within a few minutes of everyone leaving and goes to sleep, then your problem is probably not SA. SA kind of by definition requires the dog to be distressed while separated from the owner(s). That's not to say the problem is therefore not an anxiety-related problem, though. I imagine any behaviourist you get in will want to do that anyway. You may as well gather that information yourself first. If she's not distressed when everyone is out, at least you know to look hard at your behaviour around leaving and returning and start training for calm behaviour at those times. Sometimes it helps if the dog gets a special toy or treat when they are left alone, like a Kong. In our house, we enforce a "no greetings until everyone is in control of themselves" rule that has been very easy to teach. No access to us is given to the dogs until they are in a sit or down and quietly waiting. This is to prevent wild greetings from our little guy who gets a bit excitable. I don't like wild greetings.

He's a vet behaviourist. My family has had him out twice and I'm not entirely sure what went down as I didn't live at home at the time. I saw the assessment from one, though, and he was very thorough, looking for any small environmental change that might be a trigger to a change in behaviour. He didn't give a very good prognosis for that one, as it was a rescue dog with no bite inhibition that was fighting with our other dog. He basically said the only way to keep both dogs safe was to permanently separate them. That turned out to be the case. Eventually the other dog almost lost an eye and someone got badly bitten trying to break up the fight. He did give some excellent general advice about dog fights, though. The other one was also a sad case. A bit like your dog - born on the timid side, but he was reliably aggressive in most situations. He was, quite frankly, dangerous. I'm not sure what the assessment was, but I heard second hand that he was considered a serious risk and in the end my family decided they could not offer him a home where he could ever feel safe. My family were very happy with Dr Stabler and would never see anyone else. The wait might be a bit shorter than for K9Pro. ETA Incidentally, the dog that was born timid and aggressive... He was just LIKE that. I knew him from an early age and he was always different. Like nothing I'd ever seen. The closest I've seen since is my little Erik, who has a comparable proactive, outspoken kind of attitude, but a much higher fear threshold (thank goodness!). Sometimes it's not entirely the owner's fault. It's hard to know what to do with a dog that falls outside the norm, especially when no one else knows what to do about it. My family had several trainers give advice for that dog that made him worse. Mostly no one realised he wasn't a normal dog, and all the normal things you'd do for a dog were very stressful to him and he hated it. I don't think that is my family's fault that they didn't realise and didn't find better advice early on.

I've been videoing his progress. Perhaps I'll post it. At the moment it's gone to someone else, so it's not in the house. I think that the compulsion to interact with it is the same thing as the enjoyment in training. Erik seems to be a wee bit obsessed with cause and effect. If he hasn't had enough mental stimulation he starts walking around the house poking things. He is particularly drawn to tall things that wobble when he pokes them. It's like he is just looking to make something happen. He sometimes tries just standing there and barking at one of us until we do something. He doesn't really care what. I think this need to make something happen is Erik in SEEK mode, which Panksepp says is an emotional state for all mammals. So, the short answer is, he probably is addicted to it because he is particularly needy for SEEK mode and I think he's already addicted to that. You should see him if he hasn't had any training in a few days. He is impossible. But it doesn't matter because it's the mode he likes so much and there are lots of things we can do with him to address that need. Clicker training is his preference. He is nuts for clicker training. He also loves puzzle toys. If we don't provide him with something he finds his own ways to fill that need. Like poking things or randomly demanding to be let out so he can do a small wee and collect a reward for it.

Robert Stabler is in the Newcastle area and has helped my family in the past with dog aggression. He is very good. http://www.stablerbehaviour.com.au/

Perhaps her extreme reaction is because she senses you are special to the rest of her family. My parents' dogs have always been particularly deliriously happy to see me, even the ones I haven't ever actually lived with. It is the same for my brothers. I couldn't say if it goes the other way around.

Restrain the dog so it can't do it!

I've only ever been to puppy classes, and I suspect there's a large portion of the population that takes their new puppy to puppy classes and that's about it. If I knew I was possibly only going to get about 6 hours face time with a group of about 6 people, I think I would probably offer up lots of management devices as well. I don't think teaching a puppy to loose leash walk is difficult, but considering the rest of the population seems to have mixed success with it at best, I can only assume it's not that easy and I've been blessed with some easy dogs. If I were a trainer and someone had hired me for a one-on-one lesson, it would be a totally different matter.

Wow, I'm not used to people openly agreeing with me. Must be that Christmas spirit. I think that IS a valid reason. If it's the difference between a dog getting walked and a dog not getting walked, I think that is a valid reason to use those tools and make it easier. There's a difference between the ability to teach someone how to train their dog to LLW and the ability and willingness of the person to actually follow those instructions consistently. Amen to that. Anything that sees a dog get walked (as opposed to never leaving the yard) is a good thing IMO. Of course that sad thing is that its really not that difficult to train a dog to walk on a loose lead with the right method. It's even easier if you start pups off that way. You are saying Poodlefan, that a lunging dog walked on a Halti with it's head snapped around violently is a good thing???............sorry, I don't share that perspective and would rather see that dog in the backyard until the owner is taught properly how to handle the dog. I'm not speaking for PF, but I think it is hard to weigh up what is ultimately best for a dog we don't really know. What saddens me is seeing dogs that don't know how to be dogs and are frightened of the world in general because they rarely leave the yard. To me, that is a ticking time bomb. The chances of it developing serious behavioural problems are, I believe, high. Fear is behind most aggression problems. What happens if it bites someone? Can we rely on a person that couldn't be bothered to train the dog to walk on a loose leash to get professional help with an aggression problem? Say that dog gets walked on some sort of no-pull device instead. There are several to choose from, so maybe it doesn't end up on a head collar. If it does end up on a head collar, maybe it's one of those dogs that respond well to it and it lives happily ever after. Maybe it sometimes gets excited and lunges on the head collar and its head gets snapped around. Still, it's not sitting in the yard being a ticking time bomb. I can live with that. If it's doing this a lot, then I would rather it went on a no-pull harness than go and sit in the yard until the owner somehow magically procures the skills to handle the dog. If we pretend for a moment that it's even our business, to me there are several steps that have to go wrong before a dog being walked on a head collar is not better off than a dog not being walked at all. I wouldn't argue that there might be circumstances where a dog on a head collar (or a check chain or prong collar) is worse off than a dog not being walked at all, but I think we're talking about a minority, and there are still potential ways to solve that problem with a tool better suited before the owner has to learn to handle the dog without any management tools. So, I don't think it's a very realistic comparison. If you want to rant about head collars, we have all been there and done that and I think most of us have our misgivings. But this isn't a discussion exclusively about head collars as far as I'm aware.

What happens if you lean away from him? Will he come closer? I am often impressed by how much difference a simple shift in body weight can make in pressure. I have a hare, and he is extremely sensitive to personal space, because you know, if you're a hare and you let something get close enough to get you, chances are you're dead. If he's feeling pressure from me, often I can relieve it by just leaning away from him, not even moving my feet. He seems more comfortable if the balance of my bodyweight is on my heels or centred rather than on the balls of my feet. He is that sensitive. He reads where I'm likely to go by the balance of my bodyweight. I think it is instinctive. It's a tricky balance between leaning forward to close the gap between us with my hand, which is less threatening than having my body closer, and getting my body to look relaxed and like it is not about to go anywhere. I usually have to squat with my weight low and in my hips rather than my legs. Anyway, just a thought in addition to everything else.

I think that IS a valid reason. If it's the difference between a dog getting walked and a dog not getting walked, I think that is a valid reason to use those tools and make it easier. There's a difference between the ability to teach someone how to train their dog to LLW and the ability and willingness of the person to actually follow those instructions consistently.

Oh really? Mice are. I'm not sure what you would count as addiction. I think a lot of behaviours have an addictive or compulsive quality. I'm a fan of the opponent-process theory, which is the idea that emotions tend to surface in pairs that oppose each other, like pleasure and pain. When one is up the other is down. It's considered one of the possible explanations for addiction. The effects of an addictive substance become less as time goes on, and the withdrawal symptoms become stronger in response. Anyway, I was watching Erik work and I was thinking how he seemed quite comfortable with interacting with the apparatus, but when he was on his break, he was a bit restless and wanted to get back to it, but when he got back to it, it was like a relief rather than a joy. The more he works at it the stronger the appearance of relief when he gets back to it. Puts me in mind of an opponent-process, hence why I say addictive. It's like the waiting is an A process of an opponent-process, the fast and hard emotion, and the sense of relief afterwards when he gets back to it is a B process, the slow and long one. Although maybe any sense of anticipation creates the same see-saw of tense waiting and relief. SnT it's a kind of an auto-shaper for nosing. They don't actually have to touch anything with their nose as the reward is triggered by crossing a photointerruptor, like a burglar alarm or door chime at a shop. They have a visual target to aim for, though. We've been making it for the past month. It's extremely cool! I have photos somewhere...

I have a waist pack I take walking with me that has a treat pouch and poo bags dangling from it, I have a clicker on my wrist and a tug toy in my hand... I find people assume I know what I'm doing because I have lots of gear. Someone yesterday asked me if I was like a dog whisperer or something. Lots of people think they are experts about everything. Did you know having a dog makes you an expert in dogs? I would say as the only one in the world that lives with Sasha, you're a world expert on her.

This week Erik has been helping me do my PhD by being my first experimental subject. The task involves touching a target to trigger the delivery of a lactose-free milk reward. The first phase is learning to touch the target, the second to touch it only on cue, and the third to discriminate between a cue that means milk and a cue that means water instead. We are up to the third phase after 3 days of training. Erik only gets to interact with the dog training apparatus once a day for 30 minutes. As the phases have progressed, he has experienced a little frustration here and there, but has ultimately come back more and more eager to play the training game. The funny thing is, when he's actually training his tail goes down and he gets quite relaxed and calm. Every 5 minutes he gets a 3 minute break, which he spends trying to convince me to let him get back to the machine. I am fascinated by what the process does to him. The training is pretty boring in comparison to what I do with him. Every time he hears a cue, there's only a 50% chance he'll get rewarded, and then he has to wait an agonising 30 seconds before he gets another cue. But still there is the compulsion to interact with the apparatus. The only thing it registers is a nose touch, but it's like Erik just can't resist it. It's not an exciting activity, but he seems to find it somewhat addictive anyway. It makes me think of Panksepp's SEEK mode. I think that's what makes it so attractive to Erik. I wonder if it's a bit like browsing through a text book that keeps giving you little gems of information that connect other things you already knew. I wonder if Erik is drawn on by the process of learning as well as the compulsion of a variable reward schedule. I am guessing tracking is really tapping that SEEK mode as well. Steven Lindsay was talking about how inherently rewarding it could be. Clicker training I think also heavily taps the SEEK mode, as Karen Pryor confirms in her recent book. What kinds of activities do your dogs find addictive?